An 11th-hour attempt to make historic changes to state pensions blew up late Wednesday night when the Republican-controlled House could not muster enough votes for passage.

The GOP could not get enough of its 119 members to support the bill in the face of zero support among the chamber's 84 Democrats.

Standing at the top of the Capitol rotunda steps at about 10:45 p.m., Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre, declared the bill dead. Corman told reporters that House Majority Leader Dave Reed, R-Indiana, informed him there was not enough support for the bill, and Corman laid the failure at the feet of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who voiced support for the bill but did nothing to turn out votes from his party.

"It effectively ends the discussion on pension reform for this session," Corman said. "Obviously, we are extremely disappointed."

Wolf's spokesman could not be reached.

The legislative session was scheduled to end Wednesday but both chambers plan to return Thursday and for a day or two after the Nov. 8 election. Still, Corman said, he did not expect a different outcome in the GOP's attempt to reduce taxpayer risk by providing most new government workers with pension plans in 2018.

CAPTION

A train derails and crashes into a home causing the evacuation of nearby residents.

A train derails and crashes into a home causing the evacuation of nearby residents.

CAPTION

A train derails and crashes into a home causing the evacuation of nearby residents.

A train derails and crashes into a home causing the evacuation of nearby residents.

"Pennsylvania could have been No. 1 in moving the risk off the books for Pennsylvania taxpayers," he said.

Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh, who helped craft the pension bill, said many legislative staffers spent long hours trying to change the pension systems to try to ensure future generations are not saddled with decades-old debt.

"Our kids are tremendously exposed to the debts we are building up," Browne said.

Some lawmakers were opposed to the bill, not because it exempts sitting lawmakers from having to take the same kind of reduced pensions upon re-election as most new state workers and all school employees would have to do starting in 2018.

Lawmakers were growing uneasy about the bill because of opposition from state troopers who raised opposition Wednesday.

The Pennsylvania State Troopers Association — which unlike other public-sector unions holds great sway in the Republican-controlled Legislature — voiced concern over how the bill would affect a decades-old arbitration ruling that controls their retirement benefits.

And that makes chances of passage tougher, said retiring state Rep. Mike Vereb, R-Montgomery, a former municipal police officer. "They are very concerned about the language in this bill," Vereb said Wednesday morning.

The bill long has been opposed by teachers union which does not have as much support among the GOP as police unions.

"This was a very bad bill for working Pennsylvanians and we are very pleased the majority of legislators agreed with that," said David Broderic, spokesman for the state's largest teachers union, the Pennsylvania State Education Association.

Although most of the bill's language was drafted in the Senate, the Republican majority there did not plan on voting on the bill until the House concluded its deliberations and voted.

The bill was adopted in a 4-2 conference committee vote Tuesday, setting up yes-or-no votes Wednesday in the House and Senate with no amendments.

The bill would let incumbent lawmakers keep their guaranteed pensions, while newly elected lawmakers would get fewer benefits starting in 2018. The bill also would force all new school employees and most new state workers to pick from one of three newly created pension plans designed to reduce the risk for state taxpayers from ups and downs in the financial markets where pension money is invested.

The bill's Republican backers say it specifically excludes new state-based law enforcement and corrections officers from having to accept less robust pension plans. It lists them as exempt.

But the troopers union doesn't think the exemption is real. They point to a section they fear could change pensions for current retirees and troopers, not just new hires. It says the legislation would partially overturn a 1989 arbitration award that dealt with retirement benefits for troopers.

"If this becomes law, what's to block this body from changing the pension?" said retired trooper and union official John Little, who was lobbying lawmakers.

Wednesday night, Corman said the troopers concerns were unfounded and had no direct cause to the bill's failure.

The bill would not affect the guaranteed public pensions of current employees, who are part of the State Employees Retirement System or the Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement System. Nor would it affect the two systems' existing debt, estimated at up to $60 billion.

Current employees receive a guaranteed pension, meaning a locked-in rate of return no matter Wall Street's performance. The bill would change that for future lawmakers and future school teachers and clerks. State law enforcement and corrections officers would continue to enjoy guaranteed retirement benefits unless the arbitration ruling is changed.

The bill offers three plans. The first two offer a hybrid model with about half of retirement proceeds going into a guaranteed plan and the other half going into a private sector-like 401(k) plan that rides the financial market. The third option is a straight defined-contribution plan.

In all instances, each employee would pay 7.5 percent of his or her salary, and the state's employer share would drop, costing taxpayers less than the current guaranteed plans. However, the change would mean future workers get less in retirement benefits than current workers, according to an actuarial report done by the Independent Fiscal Office, a nonpartisan wing of the Legislature.

Under current law, employees who retire at age 65 with a $60,000 salary and 35 years of service earn on average $40,500 a year in retirement benefits, or 68 percent of their final income.

In the new plans a worker would get less in part because the IFO report uses a lower estimated rate of return. Those who take the hybrid plan would see their pension benefit cut by 21 percent to $32,146. Those who take the straight 401(k) plan would see their benefits cut 44 percent to an average of $17,944.

By offering the 401(k) options, the taxpayer cost would be cut $4.3 billion over three decades, with most of that savings coming in the final decade.